On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:25 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 13 May 2011 01:47:39 -0700 > Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> This patch series provides the ability for each cgroup to have independent dirty >> page usage limits. Limiting dirty memory fixes the max amount of dirty (hard to >> reclaim) page cache used by a cgroup. This allows for better per cgroup memory >> isolation and fewer ooms within a single cgroup. >> >> Having per cgroup dirty memory limits is not very interesting unless writeback >> is cgroup aware. There is not much isolation if cgroups have to writeback data >> from other cgroups to get below their dirty memory threshold. >> >> Per-memcg dirty limits are provided to support isolation and thus cross cgroup >> inode sharing is not a priority. This allows the code be simpler. >> >> To add cgroup awareness to writeback, this series adds a memcg field to the >> inode to allow writeback to isolate inodes for a particular cgroup. When an >> inode is marked dirty, i_memcg is set to the current cgroup. When inode pages >> are marked dirty the i_memcg field compared against the page's cgroup. If they >> differ, then the inode is marked as shared by setting i_memcg to a special >> shared value (zero). >> >> Previous discussions suggested that a per-bdi per-memcg b_dirty list was a good >> way to assoicate inodes with a cgroup without having to add a field to struct >> inode. I prototyped this approach but found that it involved more complex >> writeback changes and had at least one major shortcoming: detection of when an >> inode becomes shared by multiple cgroups. While such sharing is not expected to >> be common, the system should gracefully handle it. >> >> balance_dirty_pages() calls mem_cgroup_balance_dirty_pages(), which checks the >> dirty usage vs dirty thresholds for the current cgroup and its parents. If any >> over-limit cgroups are found, they are marked in a global over-limit bitmap >> (indexed by cgroup id) and the bdi flusher is awoke. >> >> The bdi flusher uses wb_check_background_flush() to check for any memcg over >> their dirty limit. When performing per-memcg background writeback, >> move_expired_inodes() walks per bdi b_dirty list using each inode's i_memcg and >> the global over-limit memcg bitmap to determine if the inode should be written. >> >> If mem_cgroup_balance_dirty_pages() is unable to get below the dirty page >> threshold writing per-memcg inodes, then downshifts to also writing shared >> inodes (i_memcg=0). >> >> I know that there is some significant writeback changes associated with the >> IO-less balance_dirty_pages() effort. I am not trying to derail that, so this >> patch series is merely an RFC to get feedback on the design. There are probably >> some subtle races in these patches. I have done moderate functional testing of >> the newly proposed features. >> >> Here is an example of the memcg-oom that is avoided with this patch series: >> # mkdir /dev/cgroup/memory/x >> # echo 100M > /dev/cgroup/memory/x/memory.limit_in_bytes >> # echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/memory/x/tasks >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/data/f1 bs=1k count=1M & >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/data/f2 bs=1k count=1M & >> # wait >> [1]- Killed dd if=/dev/zero of=/data/f1 bs=1M count=1k >> [2]+ Killed dd if=/dev/zero of=/data/f1 bs=1M count=1k >> >> Known limitations: >> If a dirty limit is lowered a cgroup may be over its limit. >> > > > Thank you, I think this should be merged earlier than all other works. Without this, > I think all memory reclaim changes of memcg will do something wrong. > > I'll do a brief review today but I'll be busy until Wednesday, sorry. Thank you. > In general, I agree with inode->i_mapping->i_memcg, simple 2bytes field and > ignoring a special case of shared inode between memcg. These proposed patches do not optimize for sharing, but the patches do attempt to handle sharing to ensure forward progress. The sharing case I have in mind is where an inode is transferred between memcg (e.g. if cgroup_a appends to a log file and then cgroup_b appends to the same file). While such cases are thought to be somewhat rare for isolated memcg workloads, they will happen sometimes. In these situations I want to make sure that the memcg that is charged for dirty pages of a shared inode is able to make forward progress to write dirty pages to drop below the cgroup dirty memory threshold. The patches try to perform well for cgroups that operate on non-shared inodes. If a cgroup has no shared inodes, then that cgroup should not be punished if other cgroups have shared inodes. Currently the patches perform the following: 1) when exceeding background limit, wake bdi flusher to write any inodes of over-limit cgroups. 2) when exceeding foreground limit, write dirty inodes of the over-limit cgroup. This will change when integrated with IO-less balance_dirty_pages(). If unable to make forward progress, also write shared inodes. One could argue that step (2) should always consider writing shared inodes, but I wanted to avoid burdening cgroups that had no shared inodes with the responsibility of writing dirty shared inodes. > BTW, IIUC, i_memcg is resetted always when mark_inode_dirty() sets new I_DIRTY to > the flags, right ? Yes. > Thanks, > -Kame One small bug in this patch series is that per memcg background writeback does not write shared inode pages. In the (potentially common) case where the system dirty memory usage is below the system background dirty threshold but at least one cgroup is over its background dirty limit, then per memcg background writeback is queued for any over-background-threshold cgroups. In this case background writeback should be allowed to writeback shared inodes. The hope is that writing such inodes has good chance of cleaning the inodes so they can transition from shared to non-shared. Such a transition is good because then the inode will remain unshared until it is written by multiple cgroup. This is easy to fix if wb_check_background_flush() sets shared_inodes=1. I will include this change in the next version of these patches. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
